I
have been interested in the exchange of theological arguments
related to the creation /evolution discussion in the March and June
1986 issues of the Journal ASA between Van Dyke and Murphy. I
would like to call attention to a curious dilemma that may not be
sufficiently clearly realized:

Thesis: The careful construction of theological arguments against a
scientific theory is likely to be self-defeating.

Corollary 1: A scientific theory that is suspected of being faulty
should be challenged primarily by the pursuit of authentic science.

Corollary 2: A philosophical or ideological position, supposedly
based on a particular scientific theory, should be challenged
primarily by the pursuit of authentic philosophy or theology, rather
than by an attack on the scientific theory.

The thesis is based on the paradoxical realization that the more
complete, more convincing, and more effective theological arguments against a scientific theory are perceived to be, the more
danger they hold for the future of that particular theology if the
scientific theory is demonstrated to be adequate beyond reasonable
doubt. If the theological arguments against a scientific theory are
weak or ambiguous, the success of the scientific theory does no real
damage to the theological perspective involved. But if the theological
arguments against a scientific theory are perceived to be absolutely
unanswerable, then the success of the scientific theory leaves the
theological perspective totally unprotected. Since we can never be
certain whether a particular scientific theory will ultimately be
demonstrated acceptable beyond a reasonable doubt, it is always a
dangerous pursuit to construct intricate and apparently convincing
theological arguments as to why the theory cannot be accepted. It is
far better to deal with possible faults in the theory by the pursuit of
authentic science. Similarly if the scientific theory is being extrapolated by people to derive philosophical or ideological conclusions, it is
far better to deal with the inauthenticity of such an extrapolation,
than it is to attack the scientific theory itself.

The Galileo experience is, of course, a principal precedent for
seeing these principles in action. Galileo's scientific hypotheses
caused as much upheaval as they did because the apparent theological arguments against their validity were so "self-evident." One
didn't have to be an intellectual to "know" that the Bible teaches
that "the earth is the center of the universe." The establishment of
the scientific view caused considerable temporary distress in Christian circles. If, instead of constructing theological arguments as to
why Galileo could not possibly be correct, his antagonists had done
some authentic science, they would have been spared the effort and
would have done ultimately much less damage to the Christian
cause. Likewise, people concerned about the nihilistic consequences
of our realization that the earth is only a tiny speck in the interior of
a vast and almost incomprehensibly large universe, should be
confronted, not with an attack on Galilean astronomy, but with an
attack on whether the nihilistic conclusions are a necessary result of
the scientific findings.

I add only the
caveat
that I am talking here about
tactics
and risk
minimization.
Please do not read the Corollaries above as implying
that theology
cannot
have something to say to science, or that science
cannot
have something to say to philosophy or ideology. In fact, it is
evident that western science itself has sprung from largely JudaeoChristian roots, and that our understanding of biblical interpretation
and revelation has been enriched by Galileo's telescope and Darwin's
finches.